Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

I find the Electric Universe theory very interesting and I'm sure that with time the elctromagnetic forces and currents in the universe will be subject to research in a larger scale and understood by more people.But in order to make the knowledge about the electric forces in the universe easier to understand for common people, that does not have a degree in "electrical ingengering" or are professor in plasma physiology, I think it is necessary to explain the theory in a way that is less based on technical terms than is the case today.For example when somebody ask "what happens in the center of a galxy" you get the answe that there is probably a "plasmoid" and the answer to other questions can be f ex that's an "anode" or a "cathode" etc and for common people, that does not want to be an "electrician" in order to understan the daily life, that type of answer does not explane anything. One ridle have been replaced with an other.So I suggest that the proponents of EU theory use a more simple language and insted of saying "plasmoid" formulate what is really observed, for example "a strong electrica and plasma concentration" and so on. Fore a beginner in the study of the EU theory the technical terms are a great hindrance fore understanding the theory even if one, like me, find it extremely interesting.

nick c wrote:The EU has attracted people from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives. The EU by necessity tends to be interdisciplinary. Here is an introduction that may be of some use to you...

There is no problem with the "interdisciplinarity". I suggest a more creative way to explain the theory to peopleEven if Einstein was nor easy to understand and maybe he was not allways right either, he did say some vise things:

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” —Albert Einstein“Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in language comprehensible to everyone.” —Albert Einstein

nick c wrote:The EU has attracted people from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives. The EU by necessity tends to be interdisciplinary. Here is an introduction that may be of some use to you...

There is no problem with the "interdisciplinarity". I suggest a more creative way to explain the theory to peopleEven if Einstein was nor easy to understand and maybe he was not allways right either, he did say some vise things:

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” —Albert Einstein“Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in language comprehensible to everyone.” —Albert Einstein

I disagree. It has to be remarkable. Einstein proved this himself. It can also be simple. But simple is often boring. So it has to be simple and fundamentally incomprehensible. Then it is remarkable. For example, let's take the notion that space-time can be bent. Is it simple? Sure. Is it comprehensible? Hell no! But is it remarkable? Yes. If it is simple and incomprehensible people will tell other people--and that is what makes it remarkable--repeatable.

The thing that makes all of science difficult to communicate is that people are not motivated by a desire to understand as much as they are motivated by a desire to be amazed.